Tech Rich Get Richer 830
theodp writes "The economy is improving, at least for the super rich. After two years of declines, the aggregate net worth of the U.S.'s wealthiest 400 citizens leapt 10% in the past year to $995 billion, according to Forbes' annual ranking. The gains are part of a continuing shift in wealth from the East coast to the tech-centric West. Bill Gates capped off a decade in the top spot after his fortune increased by $3B to $46B. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen held onto 3rd place, his net worth rising $1B to $22B. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who saw his fortune expand by more than $3B to $5.1B, was the top gainer on the list. And with a measly $1.4B, Jerry Yang of Yahoo! found himself in a 16-way tie for 162nd place."
Yay (Score:5, Funny)
2000 was a nice year (Score:4, Funny)
Then the stock price made a nice slow decent to 50 cents.
It's a little better now, but I still have to be careful how many lattes I drink.
Oh well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just hope when i finish my degree i'll be one of the richer!!
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:4, Insightful)
True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:5, Insightful)
> > "The last I heard, the median for income earners in America was $27,000 per year... doesn't sound so poor to me."
>
> True enough, until you account for the cost of living in America.
This all started when someone posted that Marxian meme that "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer".
BULLSHIT.
Then people started talking about median and/or average incomes in dollars. Nice, but you're missing the point. You're thinking about dollars, but dollars are useless without wealth.
If you want to know how "the poor" are doing, you've gotta be talking "wealth".
My grandparents were working class. Their idea of a "fridge" was a block of ice. Their idea of "luxury" was cranking ice cream by hand in a steel container surrounded by rock salt and ice chunks. And it took days to cross the Atlantic, a trip that was only for the Filthy Rich.
My parents were working class. Their idea of "comfort" was when they got air conditioning. Their idea of "luxury" was when they went from black and white to a color TV. And took hours to cross the Atlantic, and that was only for the Pretty Well Off.
I'm working class. When I was a kid, my idea of "cool" was the 3D graphics in "Tron", and my idea of "luxury" was a Cray Supercomputer I could call my own. And from my 2.0 GHz laptop with 3D card with T&L capabilities, I can alt-Tab out of Max Payne, and with a few mouse clicks, cross the Atlantic (alas, it still takes a few hours) for half the price of the laptop.
And I can show my grandparents that laptop.
I don't mind if Bill Gates has enough money to fly to the moon for his vacation. Because if someone builds commercial space tourism for the Bill Gateses of the world, I can rest easy knowing that by the time I'm in my hip-fracture years, I'll be living them in 1/6 gravity.
The rich are getting richer, but only linearly. One can eat only so much caviar per hour. Wherever capitalism has flourished, however, the poor, on the other hand, have done fantastic.
Re:Think *wealth*, not *dollars* (Score:5, Informative)
My wife and I are having a baby. There is no doubt both she and the baby are actually going to survive the birthing process, and it's a pretty solid bet the kid is going to live to adulthood. That cannot be said of many places in the world, or even here before modern medicine. (And gripe what you will about the cost, but we HAVE it.)
Re:A lot of the world still lives that way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh well.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes, the way to help the economy is cut taxes. (Score:3, Troll)
I'm not at all outraged that 38.9 million Americans, including 7.2 million children, have no healthcare. I'm too busy worrying about the rich.
You can tell this is true... (Score:4, Funny)
Salary decline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Salary decline (Score:2)
The solution to this economy, abolish pay raises! (Score:3, Interesting)
In George Bush's most recent speech, a new solution was put forward to help create jobs and spur growth, SALARY CAPS! Thats right, just like what we have in sports, a cap on your salary will allow companies to hire more workers with the same money. Add to the fact that we can get rid of overtime pay and make them work harder and longer for free, maybe we can even cut their salary and reduce to exactly $1 above their cost of living and set the cap right there.
What we need to combat this... (Score:2, Insightful)
A tax cut for the rich! That's a swell plan for redressing society's woes!
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll show you mine... now you can show us all yours. Just gots to love Google for hunting this stuff down.
Who pays the piper? [usnews.com]
Who pays income taxes? [ntu.org]
Income Tax: Who Pays? IRS Figures for 2000 [rushlimbaugh.com]
What I still don't get is why folks are so hot on upping tax rate on the very folks that are capable of hiring employees? Isn't the whole point in getting a sagging economy turned around to get the unemployment numbers down? Last I checked, social programs don't hire people.
Re:which taxes? Income taxes? Social Security tax? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why would rich people stop hiring just because they have to pay taxes? So far, given the millions of jobs that have disappeared over the last few years, I'd say cutting taxes for the rich does not create jobs.
I find it very interesting that we're told we must all sacrifice and work extra hard in this tough economic environment. We don't need extra money, we're just happy to have a job. Yet this sort of thing doesn't work with the rich; they need cash for motivation.
55 Billion (Score:5, Interesting)
50 Years 1,100,000,000
12 months 91,666,667
4 weeks 22,916,667
7 days 3,273,810
24 hours 136,409
He could spend 136 Grand an hour for the next 50 years & still have money over, even without interest.
That's a HellOfALotOf Gin & Tonics.
D
News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is this news that the top dogs are getting even richer?
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:2)
'cause this news can double as a hit-list ladder.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, actually yes, he was always rich. His parents were lawyers. Do you think he just got an academic scholarship to Harvard and decided to flunk out? Now, he probably wasn't super-rich like he is now, but most of us would kill someone for $1 million. With the right investing you could live nicely on that for the rest of your life without working.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod the parent up. Very perceptive. Rich people get richer because they buy income produci
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you tell me why people in middle class can by nice home entertainment systems and computers but not be able to buy income producing assets? One wealthy person I know of drives a rusty old Toyota truck. He can easily buy a nice new mega sized truck, but instead, he invests his free money.
Take a look at the gaming articles on slashdot. There are plenty of slashdotters who spend $$$$ on high end gaming machines, yet bitch
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:3, Informative)
You are full of crap.
US Unemployment Rate since 1948 [bls.gov]
US Inflation Rate History [eh.net]
US Per Capita Income History Since 1950 [infoplease.com]
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:2)
Disclaimer: This is not meant to be funny
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:2)
Why is this news that the top dogs are getting even richer?
Are you kidding? Has there ever been more fertile soil for the trademarked Slashdot socialist MS-bashing then this story?
It practically screams, "Hold Page One!"
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's capitalism at work. World wide statistics are show the top 1% holding even higher % of wealth. Not that there is anything wrong with it. US is the most unequal of the OECD, followed by Switzerland a
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many, many Americans who would disagree with you. Granted, the lot of us aren't losing fingers to meat grinders, which are subsequently fed back to us in hotdogs anymore, but there *was* a recent article on Slashdot (I believe? maybe I read it somewhere else) that this generation is the first in a long, long time to have less than their forebears.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the USA as a whole is richer in capital, and poorer for it (Canada too). That's news.
Re:Envy. (Score:2)
An eternity of burning in the Lake of Fire under Satan's rule!!!
Just kidding, give $100 million to the Vatican and you're all set in the afterlife.
The Link is bad? (Score:2)
I wanted to find out where larry ellisson was. He was No2 at some point of time , but I think the DotCom bust took care of that.
Anyway is'nt it funny that US Tech industry is going downhill for the workers whil the Industry is making money for the "bosses" (and the investors) ?
If they keep making money like this and the middleclass keeps getting smaller (less manufacturing, less IT , design is doing well though) at this rate is USA headed for a crisis? Since the ric
Re:The Link is bad? (Score:3, Informative)
I know it might trump your little party for the poor, helpless little people that make it all happen, but my salary has been steadily going up for the past 5 years, despite the tech bust. In 1999, the median salary for a US Systems Administrator was $64,271 [sage.org]. As of 2002, the average salary was $67,675 ($67,920 for males, and $64,946 for females) [sage.org].
So even thr
16-way tie? (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon, Jerry! Go mow a few lawns or something. Break that tie!
Re:16-way tie? (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds of a sketch on an old UK comedy series, The Two Ronnies. They had a regular sketch where a couple of tramps would muse about the world in general. Probably the best remember is:
First tramp: "If I were Rockefeller, I'd be richer than Rockefeller"
Second tramp: "How's that then? How do you reckon that?"
First tramp: "Well, I'd do a spot of window cleaning on the side..."
Cheers,
Ian
Class warfare (Score:3, Insightful)
It disgusts me! We're all poor because they're a bunch of greedy, good-for-nothing bastards who horde all the money for themselves! They stuff it in their mattresses and roll naked in it! No, no, they don't spend it, they horde it just keep us poor!
Evil I tell you, EEEEEEVVVVVIIIIIIILLL!
Re:Class warfare (Score:2)
Re:Class warfare (Score:2)
Re:Class warfare (Score:2)
That's right. Most Americans are RICH compared to the rest of the world.
See? You're EEEEVILL! You're hordeing all the world's money aren't you, you dirty rich bastard!
Re:Class warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, while I have no problem with capitalism rewarding those who take the risks (and often screwing other risk takers), the scale *is* a bit off.
It's just a bit disgusting when these guys will get a few million dollar bonus for keeping the salaries of the people who helped made them rich down for example. Or get millions of bucks even if they run a company into the ground, bankrupt it, and screw all of the stockholders and employees.
Re:Class warfare (Score:2)
I happen to write HR code now, so am privy to the salaries and other compensation of all employees at my company. I've seen a few things happen recently, as our profit margin is in the red...
Layoffs everywhere in the company
Mandatory pay cuts for employees in the middle ranges of salary
Cuts in incentive bonuses, or complete elimination
An increase in salary and bonuses to the top 10% of salary grades here
Yeah, those guys really earned their wealth, and certainly not at the expense o
I've always wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
What do people do with all this money? This isn't a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know what these people intend to do with such fortunes. I assume part of it is really stocks, and so it's company worth rather than personal worth, but still, I can't see ever needing more than, say, $2-3 million over the course of my entire life.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:2, Interesting)
Really mees up thier children's world view.
I'll tell you what I would do with all that money. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'll tell you what I would do with all that mon (Score:2)
Now three girls at once? I'm still looking. I keep it on my christmas list, but my roommates keep telling me they can't find another girl whose worthy
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:2)
But other places to spend:
1. House
2. People to take care of house(inside and out)
3. People to take care of money
4. Lawyers
5. People to take care of kids
6. Material things(jets, boats, cars)
7. Food(200-300 a day could be easily spent on one person)
8. List goes on.
But I think Gates really does give alot away, granted he has alot to give away. Sorry no link.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:2)
The Biggest Philanthropists (Score:4, Informative)
Try about 60%. There was a Businessweek article in December 2002 that ranked the biggest philanthropists in the world [businessweek.com] (not sure if non-subscribers can read this article from the archives) -- he's ranked #1 in terms of amounts given. My eyeball estimate is that he's #6 in terms of percentage of wealth given (which is somewhat misleading, since Gordon Moore and James Stowers apparently committed more money than they were worth, and so would be ranked #1 and #2 in terms of percentage).
I'd be impressed if the man gave away a few billion dollars at a time and not in stupid ways. When he spends money on schools I'm impressed when he actually builds a school, but usually he does not build a school, usually he just donates Microsoft products (big deal) to schools.
Gates's main focus is eradicating diseases in developing countries. Yeah, that's really stupid. He has also given the largest single private grant in history [nptimes.com] -- for a global vaccine program. Again, very stupid. Whatever.
BTW, Larry Ellison (Oracle) is ranked #1 for biggest cheapskate [businessweek.com] -- he has given away 0.4% of his worth. Steve Ballmer is the 5th biggest cheapskate. And, to me, worst of all, given who he is and what he stands for for so many people, Warren Buffett is the 6th biggest cheapskate -- he's given away only $230 million of his $36 billion.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:3, Interesting)
The more money you have, the more you can imagine spending money on. You and I never think about buying our own private luxury yacht, complete with crew, helicopter, etc., because it's so beyond what we can afford. When, however, you look at your bank balance and realise that you can, but you just need to double your estate to make it worthwhile...
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)
Any one can give out any amount of money. Because in fact money is not really paper bills, but rather power to do as you please.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:2)
Spend it, frivously.
Think $100 hamburgers and $150 martinis.
Think walking away from a blackjack table after losing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Think paying someone hundreds of dollars an hour to do your hair.
Think dozens of cars.
Etc.
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly, wealthy people give their money away. Heard of Carnegie Hall?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Article Doesn't Really Support Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
First, choosing an unrepresentative sample of 400 people out of about 300 million can't possibly tell you anything useful about the broad trends of a society ("...Rich Get Richer").
Second, of the 400 richest people in the US, only a small fraction of them have their wealth based on a technical source (even broadly defined). So the "Tech" part of the headline is suspect as well.
But hey, I'm all for the mob, let's eat the rich!
Rich Get Richer (Score:4, Interesting)
From the CIA World Factbook entry for the United States:-
But but but (Score:2, Funny)
---rhad
While I remain unemployed.....since January. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:While I remain unemployed.....since January. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you really have sent out this many resumes then you could do a few things:
Sounds pretty bad to me (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're telling me that in the last year, these billionaires only managed to get a 10% return? I mean, even if we're talking about someone owning a lot of real estate, that still appreciates in value over time (generally). Let's say that only half their value is actually invested in things that would appreciate (stock/fund/real estate/other investments, for example), which is really conservative. That's still only a 20% return. Sounds pretty poor to me.
-Todd
Re:Sounds pretty bad to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, that 10% average return figure is bogus -- or at least has been for a few years now. Just being non-negative has been a goal for a lot of mutual funds of late. Also consider, if you have $5000 to invest, it's a lot easier to get
Rich get richer, poor get children (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah...HE LAID ME OFF! (Score:2)
You too can be a millionare (Score:5, Interesting)
It can be quite sobering to find out that you are in the top 0.9% richest people in the world. Thats a hell of a lot of people poorer than you.
I'm sure people will rip this apart because it's based on global data, doesn't take into account cost variations in countries and 101 other things - but give it a go anyway.
Re:You too can be a millionare (Score:2)
Re:You too can be a millionare (Score:4, Insightful)
Somewhat related is how amusing it is to hear people talking about "tax cuts for the (rich | poor | etc)," when they're actually talking about "tax cuts for the (high income | low income | etc)," which is more accurate. Just because someone has a high salary or a low salary does not mean they have a high net worth or low net worth.
Re:You too can be a millionare (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly right. Politicians are busy trying to buy the votes of the elderly and convince the rest of the voters to let them get away with it by saying the elderly are on "low inc
What bothers me (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, corporate CEOs and super rich are much more productive than the average person....but their brains still tick at a mere 1000hz. They can still only speak at a slowish 150wpm and listen at the same rate. Their memories still have limited durations like all other mortal humans. It just isn't physically possible for them to have done the work of 10,000 other people.
The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
In some cases, the money was stolen from fortunes made by the ideas and productive results of employees of the company. Does anyone truly believe Jobs invented the imac and made it's phenomenal success possible? If you believe that, ask Wozniac what Jobs did with Wozniac's work at Atari.
Before someone accuses me of the obvious : no, I am personally involved in any of this. I'm simply noting the truth.
Re:What bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they can. They've provided work for a lifetime for thousands of people.
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What bothers me (Score:4, Insightful)
What remains is the question of whether or not it is right that these people do so well out of founding a company and making it successful. You can look at it two ways. some would say the success of these companies was due not just to the founder, but also due to the hard work of the other employees. Others will point out that the risk and effort taken by the company founder is what enables all these employees to earn a living in the first place. Whatever the case; these company founders are not particularly productive, not to the tune of billions of dollars anyway. But they founded their respective companies and own them... that's where their fortune derives from. Should that ownership be taken away from them when the company takes off? I think not.
Just remember that one of the best ways to become rich yourself is to start your own business and make it successful. Even a moderately successful small-scale company can be worth a nice deal of money; not billions, but enough to keep you comfortable.
You don't even have to start the company yourself. I've been invited to help with a startup... and if I am going to pour my sweat and tears into the company (and with a startup, I can expect to have to), my efforts will be a large contribution to the success of the company. That means I want to have a stake in the potential success as well: not in the form of a large salary, but in a part ownership of the company.
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet the shareholders, who were "duped", make money in the end because their stock values rise. The employees make money from their jobs. The executives make money from guiding and directing the work of the other employees, thus making creations like the automob
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
First, who are you to decide what is within the bounds of reason? How did what you earn per year become the measuring stick? If it's not you, who decided? Does the average or the mean income determine what is "in bounds"? How about the lowest income? What's the rule I should follow here?
Second, to apply your thinking, I bet there is some guy in Bangladesh, Liberia or the Sudan who makes less than $100 a year. ShooterNeo, if you have an entry level IT jo
Re:What bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're failing to recognize is the difference between net worth and salary. Salary is generally recognized as a compensation for labor.
Gates and Jobs, for example, were founders of their companies. They took risks, they had good ideas, and they had the leadership to drive their companies to financial success (you can argue amonst yourselves about the technical success of their products, but the financial accomplishments of their companies is pretty evident).
Most of their net worth came about through equity that they have as the founders of these companies, NOT through their salaries. Yes, their salaries are high, but not $40 billion high. Most of this net worth was accumulated through the appreciation of their equity.
Re:Ummm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You and a few thousand other investors come in, then. He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company. You have been stolen from
I'm sure the investors who bought during Microsoft's IPO feel really shafted. I mean, they only saw a 500-fold return on their investments (assuming they bought at IPO and sold at the 1999 peak).
You still don't understand how this works: When the investors put in their $10 millio
Re:What bothers me is dolts. (Score:3, Insightful)
We do. It's a "+5 Insightfull" from other blithering idiots.
BBC also has the story (Score:2, Informative)
Bill still stinking rich (Score:2, Interesting)
two IT jobs to have a life? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) lost their jobs because of the "recession"
b) have to work for free or similar because there are too many people that are willing to do the same
or
c) have to work for 70 hours a week to have a life?
am I the only one who thinks that there's something rotten in the "american way of life"
Who cares? (Score:3)
Outsourcing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tech Poor Get Poorer (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us that are just middle class 'IT people' lost more ground, in general.
Perhaps we need a union, to start taking back some of our share of the loot those over paid useless bastards in that list are getting from OUR hard work.
Bitter? Yes..
And the Middle Class gets richer too!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Everyone's money is growing, its just that the CEOs have a LOT more money invested than I do. That's what makes the USA's model the best in the world, we have the most opportunities to better ourselves. Nothing is stopping me from investing my money any differently than the rich can, and with hard work, I'll have the money to live the lifestyle I want.
Besides, have you looked at the tax laws lately? A man and wife, combined income of $100k, which is two standard engineer salaries of 50k. Guess what, you're "rich". Not exactly "fair" is it, but hey, lets keep calling to tax the rich, and someday we'll realize we're taxing ourselves.
Re:Nice... (Score:2)
Re:Nice... (Score:2)
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:3, Informative)
This phrase is really starting to annoy me. If you define "the rich" as "everybody who pays taxes", then yes, the recent tax cuts were "tax cuts for the rich". But that definition is obviously ridiculous, so the phrase "tax cuts for the rich" really doesn't apply to the Bush tax cuts. Please learn the definitions of the words you use before you speak again.
Not even true in the way YOU mean it (Score:5, Interesting)
And, of course, you're still being disingenuous. The recent tax cuts were enormously disproportionately aimed at the wealthiest 5% of the population, and designed really not to benefit anyone else, like those who would actually spend the money and stimulate the economy. (Large increases in spending/purchasing are a much better economic stimulus than large increases in investment with no increases in spending, which is what these tax cuts give us. Ask any rational economist.)
And given that this tax cut is likely to be made permanent, and that we're likely to be hit with a full-on capital gains tax moratorium if Bush is reelected, you will have the amusing experience of seeing large numbers of the richest five percent in the country (the 'idle rich') paying literally no federal income taxes at all, whle the middle class works to support the infrastructure of the country that they enjoy. Reagan tried to do that several times, and I believe Bush Sr. did as well.
Bush's economic team is on record as saying, and I believe this is an exact quote, that they needed to 'shift the tax burden down the income spectrum'. I.e., the rich should pay less in taxes and the middle class pay more. You may agree with this, and that's your perogative, but if you claim it's not happening you're either being blind or you're deliberately trying to make it easier for the administration.
Either way, pretty sad.
-fred
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I don't know how everybody involved in these kinds of debates manages to ignore *payroll* taxes, which are just as surely taxes as any other kind of tax, and which fall disproportionately (meaning, a larger fraction of income) on people with the lowest earned incomes. Those taxes have not gone down, although they are in many cases the *majority* of the taxes paid by people with lower incomes. And that's really just the federal taxes. State income taxes, in the states that have them, often have a top bracket at some pathetically low amount; those taxes have not been going down, either.
And then there are sales taxes and gasoline taxes, which end up being a higher marginal rate on lower incomes for reasons that I'm sure should be pretty obvious.
You can agree or disagree with the reasoning behind the Bush tax cuts, but because they were cuts in income taxes primarily for the very highest brackets, there is very little way in which they could not have been tax cuts for the wealthiest.
In a similar vein, the plan to eliminate the estate tax by definition only affects states that are quite a bit larger than the vast majority of estates. By your reasoning, it would be unfair to say that this is a tax cut for the rich because it's a tax cut for the only people paying any estate tax. But those are the rich people. Hence, the point stands.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center -- the 2001 tax cut, once fully phased in, will deliver 42 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of the income distribution. (Roughly speaking, that means families earning more than $330,000 per year.) The 2003 tax cut delivers a somewhat smaller share to the top 1 percent, 29.1 percent, but within that concentrates its benefits on the really, really rich. Families with incomes over $1 million a year -- a mere 0.13 percent of the population -- will receive 17.3 percent of this year's tax cut, more than the total received by the bottom 70 percent of American families. Indeed, the 2003 tax cut has already proved a major boon to some of America's wealthiest people: corporations in which executives or a single family hold a large fraction of stocks are suddenly paying much bigger dividends, which are now taxed at only 15 percent no matter how high the income of their recipient.
Sounds like TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH to me!!!
A rich man's voice (Score:3, Interesting)
Published on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 by the Washington Post
Dividend Voodoo
by Warren Buffett
The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 10
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:3, Insightful)
The money will most likely make no immediate difference in the lifestyle of the upper-class.
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:3, Insightful)
But doing the hand-outs so arbitrarily does nothing to guarantee their success. Do people in government really think they have mastered economics so well that they can change the face of society with a poiticially-motivated tax system? The current tax system is insane and is s
Re:Why do you think Bush gave them tax cuts? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that by definition, rich people are rich because they can buy whatever they want. Reducing their taxes is thus NOT going to have any impact on the economy because these people have no real incentive to spend more, the extra little bit of money is not going to have any impact.
Also, the earned income tax credit was originally a Republican proposal if my memory serves me correctly. The idea behind it is also based on the above logic. Poor people are deemed poor because they DON'T have the money to purchase what they want. By giving them back money (or just giving them money) you are pretty much guaranteed they are going to spend it. If you give $1000 to a person who makes $20,000 a year, they will spend it. GIve $1000 to a person who makes $200,000 a year and has $1.5 million in assets, they might not even cash the check mailed to them by the government.
Now, I will be the first to admit that none of this solves the problem of a consumer driven economy. But, I am struggling as much as the next man. I would much rather improve our currently corrupt economy so I can pay the rent than plan for the future. Once we get things under control, then we can talk about changing the way our society works.
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe that an honest and hard working person can become a multimillionaire.
Yes, maybe people who found multinational companies deserve more than what they actually put in in labour, but a lot of people who are CEOs are not founders. How many people are CEOs because they went to business school and managed to bullshit and pass-the-buck, their way to the top? Do they deserve
What a @#%!*ing myth. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "you could do it too" dream is a lie we sell ourselves so we don't get all upset about all the rich who actually control things, who take our money and don't have to run because we all love them. The master/servant relationship is alive today in America. The middle class are the servants.
Each day we get one step closer to returning to out-and-out feudalism as those in power work to concentrate more and more power.
We have to work against them to get back to the REAL American Dream - freedom, democracy, and equal opportunities for all. The Ayn Randian everyone-for-herself, you-too-could-be-a-billionaire world view is not equal opportunity for everyone. There is no equality when you start from an immensely unbalanced power structure. We can build a better world, we just have expend some effort to get there. Effort we can't be bothered to spend if we're all deluding ourselves about our chances of one day being a master over our own little band of slaves.
(I would start by imposing percentage-based salary caps on the richest citizens - there's no conceivable way that any human can be worth as much as the super-rich make. It's ridiculous. And no, just because they can dupe others into allowing them to have that much is not an excuse. Just because a thief can grab somebody's wallet does not give him the right to that person's wallet.)
Re:They did it, why can't you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even you say that Gates got lucky. He not only was lucky enough to find a hastily put together OS that he could buy for $80,000, but he was also lucky enough that IBM was in such a rush that they screwed up their contract with MS. If not for that, MS would probably have been just another software company that made programming languages.
A lot of people start from nothing, work hard, make sound choices, and still fail because of the various random factors surrounding them that they have absolutely no control over.
I can assure you that if I took $1,500 and started a business with it, the likely outcome (no matter how hard I worked or how wise my decisions were) would be me going out of business in a very short amount of time.
Who knows, maybe tommorrow a lightbulb will go off in your head and you'll think of a way of doing something innovative or different.
People think of that all the time. However, the chance of taking that idea and turning it into a fortune 500 company is slim.